1 James P. Ward Military Pay and Taxation in Early 16Th Century
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
NOTE ADDED 1 October 2011: I submitted an earlier version of this article together with a letter dated 14 Sept. 2006 to the editors of a learned journal, and I was informed by email (24 July 2007) that a revised version which the referee(s) had advised on and approved would appear in the 2008 edition of the journal; quod non. My recent enquiries by email, including my request to withdraw the article, remain unanswered. Since I have referred in other articles to this one as “forthcoming”, rather than delay its appearance further I have chosen to revise it again and to publish it here in its definitive form of two parts. James P. Ward th Military Pay and Taxation in Early 16 Century Holland during the Guelders War Part I. Military Pay in Early 16th Century Holland 1.1. Introduction Historians seem agreed that the relationship between the Dutch Republic and its soldiers from the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries onwards was exemplary in money matters. Writing on the reforms of the army which Prince Maurice and other princes of Orange carried out at that time, Jonathan Israel remarked that their revisions of many features of soldiering “placed a premium on the prompt payment of troops at regular intervals”. Their reforms, Israel added, were designed not only to improve military efficiency, but “no less important, to protect civil society from disruption by soldiers”. Important elements in the methods that the military reformers used were “tighter discipline and regular payment of the troops at relatively short intervals”.1 Frank Tallett in his study of war and society in early modern Europe wrote that discipline and cohesion within armies depended among other things on soldiers being regularly paid, “which was generally not the case”.2 Michiel de Jong re-emphasized the importance of regular payment of the troops. He pointed out that in the years 1587 to 1589 the defence of the Dutch Republic was weakened by financial problems, and that this led to mutinies and the defections of a number of garrisons and towns in Holland. Lessons were learned from this, and from the 1590's onward soldiers were paid regularly.3 An aim of this article, which is based on primary sources, is to draw attention to a problem which caused discontent in the professional mercenary armies of early sixteenth 1 Jonathan I. Israel, The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall 1477-1806, (Oxford, 1995), pp. 267-268. 2 Frank Tallett, War and Society in Early Modern Europe, 1495-1715, (London and New York, 1992), p. 55 and p. 113. 3 Michiel de Jong, "Staat van Oorlog": Wapenbedrijf en militaire hervorming in de Republiek der Verenigde Nederlanden 1585-1621, (Hilversum, 2005), p. 42. 1 century Holland, and which caused discontent more recently in the British army in Iraq; the question of payment (note 33). In the first part of the article it is shown that in Burgundian- Habsburg Holland at the beginning of the sixteenth century city magistrates, men on whose wealth largely rested the security of Holland, had not learned the need to pay soldiers promptly. Delays of many months, aggravated by the two different monetary standards used, were major causes of discontent among the soldiers.4 As a corollary, it is proposed that exposure of the cities and States of Holland to military violence and mutinies during the Guelders war was a part of processes by which the magistrates learned to conduct a defensive war. In the second part of the article it is shown that pressures on public finances caused by the Guelders war in Holland increased substantially from 1508 to 1515 during Margaret of Austria's regency and thereafter. The costs of the war were great, and to meet them required a great increase in public expenditure. Traditional methods of raising money by taxation and by short term loans were replaced by long term public borrowing from bankers at moderate interest rates. Interest on the loans was paid from instalments of the aides or supply, called the bede in Holland. To their credit, however, in 1507 the cities of Holland won for themselves certain rights of inspection and audit of military numbers and expenditure. 1. 2. Sources The accounts of successive Treasurers for North-Holland at The Hague were examined for incomes and expenditures on the domain and the ducal aides. The aides were of two kinds, ordinary- and extra-ordinary aides (which were called the omslag in Holland). Accounts of the treasurers of Haarlem, Leiden, Dordrecht and Gouda, and the extant minutes of formal meetings of the local councils (Vroedschappen) of Haarlem, Leiden, Gouda and Rotterdam were also studied.5 In quantity and quality of detail the sources are biased in favour of Haarlem and Leiden. But in this article relating to the payment of soldiers and civilians working in 4 This article is based on part of my unpublished doctoral thesis, revised and augmented: James P. Ward, "The Cities and States of Holland (1506-1515). A participative system of government under strain", (Leiden, 2001). 5 Extracts from the sources have been published by the Institute for Netherlands History (ING) as part of the so- called Diet Project. Primary sources are listed in: J. W. J Burgers, J. P. Ward and J. G. Smit (eds.), Bronnen voor de geschiedenis der dagvaarten van de Staten en steden van Holland voor 1544, Deel VI, 1506-1515, (The Hague, 2006). This publication is referred to here in the notes as Bronnen, followed by the page number. 2 military capacities there is agreement within the sources examined, and there is uniformity in the levels of pay in Holland. 1. 3. Governance in Holland in the Early Sixteenth Century The cities and towns of Holland were administered by colleges of magistrates who formed the local court (gerecht), and who fulfilled a number of functions. The day to day administrative affairs of Leiden, for example, were managed by a college of thirteen men made up of the sheriff (schout), four burgomasters and eight aldermen (scepenen), who were responsible for keeping law and order, for regulating and controlling trade, local industry, commerce and taxation, for matters pertaining to public health and safety, and for local defence and security in times of war. The local advisory councils (vroedschappen) of the cities were made up of present and past members of the magistrates courts. Their numbers were defined by privileges granted in the past by the counts of Holland and their Burgundian-Habsburg successors. In Leiden, for example, at the beginning of the sixteenth century the local council, the vroedschap, consisted of forty members. Resolutions and decisions within the local councils, if not unanimous, were passed by a majority vote. At diets (dagvaarten) of the States of Holland, most of which were held at The Hague, each of the six major cities (Dordrecht, Haarlem, Leiden, Delft, Gouda and Amsterdam) had one vote, and the nobility of Holland had jointly one single vote; seven votes in all. If unanimity could not be achieved at the diets then decisions were taken on a majority vote. However, the three northern cities, Haarlem, Leiden and Amsterdam, acted in the conviction that at least four of the cities' votes were needed to make a measure legally binding. Because Dordrecht, Gouda and the nobles frequently sided with the government this led to tensions whenever the majority vote failed to include four of the main cities. Great importance attached to two officers within the governing system of early sixteenth century Holland (and later); the stadholder, and the Advocate of Holland. The stadholder was the political and military leader in Holland. Normally, diets of the States of Holland were convened and presided over by the stadholder. He was appointed as governor (gouverneur ) by the prince, and he remained under the authority of the ruler or the regent. From 1483 until his death Jan van Egmond (1438-1516) occupied this office in Holland. 3 However, because of his age and poor health he was assisted by his nephew Florence van Egmond (1470-1539), who was de facto stadholder. In 1516 Henry van Nassau was appointed to succeed Jan van Egmont.6 The office of Advocate of Holland was filled by two men in succession at this time. Frans Cobel (ca. 1470-1532) was appointed in 1500, and he was succeeded late in 1513 by Aelbrecht van Loo (1472-1525).7 One of the Advocate's most important duties was to represent formally and to speak on behalf of the cities and States of Holland at diets of the States General. As the stadholder was the intermediary of the prince then, likewise, the Advocate of Holland was the intermediary of the cities and States of Holland. Consequently, the stadholder, the Advocate and the cities and States of Holland were required to work closely together. There were years when the Advocate, by agreement with the States of Holland, combined his legal duties with the office of Treasurer to the Common Land of Holland. The Treasurer’s Office of the Common Land of Holland was a separate one. The relationship at that time between the Advocacy of Holland and the Treasurer’s Office was marked, and marred, by disagreements between Frans Cobel and the States of Holland, about whose interests he was serving most.8 In times of war the Treasurer was involved in taxing the cities on behalf of the government through the so-called extraordinary bede or omslag, and in making payments to soldiers. But the Guelders war was highly unpopular in Holland, and so this combination of functions, of Advocate and of Treasurer, was one of the tensions affecting government in Holland at the beginning of the sixteenth century.